Joe Klein: The Third Debate: Obama Wins on Style and Substance
The Third Debate: Obama Wins on Style and Substance
By Joe KleinOct. 22, 2012503 Comments
President Obama won the foreign policy debate, cleanly and decisively, on both style and substance. It was as clear a victory as Mitt Romney’s in the first debate. And Romney lost in similar fashion: he seemed nervous, scattered, unconvincing — and he practiced unilateral disarmament, agreeing with Obama hither and yon … on Iraq (as opposed to two weeks ago), on Afghanistan (as opposed to interviews he’s given this fall), on Libya and Syria and Iran. He didn’t have a single creative or elegantly stated foreign policy thought and, indeed, seemed foolish at times, using the word peace about as often as George McGovern in 1972 (not that McGovern was foolish, but Romney has run so hot and aggressive on foreign policy that he seemed a sudden convert to transcendental meditation or Yoko Ono’s secret consort). Romney did have some strong moments — but they were, once again, on the domestic economy. And Obama didn’t have a single weak or unconvincing moment.
This was not only a strong debate for Obama, it was a clever one. He mentioned Israel three times as our greatest ally in the region before Romney mentioned it once. It was especially convenient that we are conducting joint military exercises with Israel this week, exercises that had been delayed from last spring at Israel’s request (and after Matt Drudge and other weasels blamed Obama for delaying them at the time). I thought Obama’s “zinger” about Romney favoring the “foreign policy of the ’80s, the social policy of the ’50s and the economic policy of the ’20s” seemed transparently precooked, if true. But the President’s strongest moment — also precooked — came when he noted Romney’s frequent assertion that Americans have the smallest Navy since 1916: “We also have fewer horses and bayonets,” Obama said. “We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.” There were some commentators who thought this was too sarcastic or condescending. I didn’t.
The fact is, Romney’s foreign- and national-security policies have been a steaming heap of nonsense from the start. It was telling that Romney didn’t attempt his line about “throwing Israel under the bus” and Obama “wanting to return to 1967 borders” tonight. He did not do that for a reason: because it is a lie. Obama would have come right back at him, saying, “Governor, you know my position is a return to the 1967 borders with mutually agreed-upon land swaps. Why do you insist on misrepresenting me?” (Once again, Obama’s position is not only consistent with that of every American President since Nixon, it is also consistent with the stated position of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.)
more...
http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/22/the-third-debate-perfect-symmetry/